HC Deb 11 March 1824 vol 10 cc927-35

The report of the committee on this bill being brought up,

Mr. Sykes

rose to express his strong abhorrence of the practice of military flogging, which he considered as nothing else than an anatomical experiment upon a living subject. The principal defence which had been offered in favour of it rested upon the assertion, that as a punishment it had been long in use in the British army. In point of fact, that was no defence at all; for instead of being one of those practices which were sanctified by time, it was only one of those barbarous relics of a barbarous age which ought to be abolished immediately. It was excruciating in point of suffering, degrading in point of feeling, and unnecessary in point of discipline; and, as the chief effect of it was to deter those persons from entering into the army whom it would be most desirable to allure into it, he trusted that the noble lord would consent to abolish it, and would turn his humane mind to devising some other effectual punishment to be substituted in its stead. It was said, that without the lash it would be impossible to prevent drunkenness among the soldiery. Now, if honourable gentlemen would consider the manner in which the army was recruited, they would see the very curious nature of this argument. First, the men were tempted into the army by having liquor given them to excess; and being so enticed, they were then soundly flogged if they dared to take it in a similar manner afterwards. It was likewise said, that at present this punishment was very seldom inflicted. If that were the case, what objection could there be to abolishing it altogether? He must confess that he felt strongly upon this subject, in consequence of a circumstance that had happened three or four years ago, in the immediate neighbourhood in which he lived. A soldier, who waited on the mess of his regiment, stole, or was said to have stolen, certain spoons belonging to it. A court-martial was summoned to decide upon his offence—a circumstance on which he should only remark, that it placed the man's prosecutors in the singular situation of his judges. The court martial was held, and the soldier was convicted—justly, he had no doubt—of the robbery laid to his charge. He was sentenced to receive four hundred lashes. The punishment, or he should rather say a part of the punishment, was inflicted; for the man's body was lashed, till the surgeon declared that it was not safe to lash it any longer. In a day or two afterwards an order came for the regiment to move its quarters. The weather happened to be very sultry, and owing to the march, irritated the wounds on the man's back to such a degree, that they became inflamed and subsequently mortified. The man of course died. A coroner's inquest was held upon his body; and the verdict returned by the jury, after a considerable examination into the subject, was, "Wilful murder, committed by some person or persons unknown." But, though it was now three or four years since that verdict had been given, no proceedings had been taken upon it from that time down to the present [hear, hear]. He should like to hear from the noble lord opposite, whether there was any truth in the statement which had been made by an hon. member on a former evening; namely, that when a soldier was punished in the Guards, part of his pay went to the hospital, and part to the fund set aside for the officers' dinners? [Cries of No, no.] He should be glad to hear that such a practice did not exist; but he must again ask, was it the practice, or was it not?

Colonel Dawkins

said, that he was not in the House at the time when the hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Hobhouse) had brought forward his charges against the regiment to which he had the honour to belong; but, as they had been again referred to, and as they had already appeared in print, he was anxious to say a word or two regarding them on the present occasion. In the first place, he must inform the House, that in the seven battalions of Foot Guards, corporal punishment was scarcely ever inflicted: and, in the next place, that the regimental returns proved beyond all controversy, that in the last twelve months only one man had been flogged in the King's Mews. What, then, became of the stories which had been industriously circulated, regarding the frequent punishments which took place in those barracks, and which were described as so distressing to the ears and minds of the neighbouring inhabitants? In the battalion of Grenadier Guards which had been stationed there for the last six months, there had been only one instance of corporal punishment; and in the battalion of Coldstream Guards to which he had the honour to belong, and which had been there for the six months previous, there had been no instance of corporal punishment whatever [hear, hear]. With regard to the statement of the hon. member for Aberdeen, that when a soldier was under punishment, his pay went to form a fund for the officers' dinners, he would content himself with giving it a positive contradiction. He would, however, tell the House what became of a man's pay whilst he was under punishment. The House would recollect it was only 13d. a day. Now, of this sum, 6d. a day went to his gaoler, and the other 7d. was not drawn, as was supposed. The gallant officer, after congratulating the country on the diminution of corporal punishment in the army, and after attributing it to the liberal regulations of the duke of York, concluded by stating his conviction, honestly and fearlessly, that corporal punishment, in its restricted present state, was essential to the discipline of the British army.

Mr. Hume

contended, that the diminution in the number of military floggings was not so much owing to the regulations of the duke of York, as to the exertions of his honourable friend the member for Westminster (sir Francis Burdett). It appeared to him to be a contradiction in terms, to congratulate the country on the diminution of corporal punishments in the army, and yet to say, that the army could not exist in a state of discipline without it. With regard to the pay of the soldiers under punishment, he would merely ask one question. Was it, or was it not paid into the stock-purse of the regiment? The noble lord opposite had said, that it was so paid; if it was not, he (Mr. H.) was not to blame for the mistake which he had committed.

Sir H. Hardinge

also referred to and denied what the hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Hobhouse) had said, on a former debate on this bill, that the cries of the soldiers flogged in the Mews-barracks had been drowned in the roll of the drums. The fact was, that, during the last year, only one instance of the kind had occurred, and that flogging was abolished in the Guards, excepting under very extraordinary circumstances. With regard to the contemptible charge which had been made upon the officers of the Guards, and that too in no very delicate terms, for the pay of the men was said to have gone into "the pockets of the officers," [hear, hear]—with regard to that contemptible charge, he, too, must be permitted to say a few words. He did not suppose that it had originated with the hon. member for Aberdeen; he had doubtles received it from some slanderous military informer, who, to the baseness of being an informer against his own comrades, added the further baseness of having given the hon. member for Aberdeen false information. At the time the charge was first broached in the House, he was not able to give it that direct and positive contradiction which even then he knew it to deserve. But, he was now better informed upon the subject; and he could inform the House, that the money in question went neither into the pockets of the officers, nor into the stock-purse of the regiment. If, by any fault of the quartermaster, it had been accidentally thrown into the stock-purse of the regiment, surely that would not justify any man in saying, that among the officers of the Guards there was a trafficking in military justice. The average quantity of stoppages in a year, in each battalion of the Guards, amounted to about 15l. which, divided among the officers, would only give a small pittance to each. Was it likely, then, that a captain in the Guards would be guilty of trafficking in military justice, to obtain 25s. or any subaltern to obtain about 9s. a year? The idea was too ridiculous to be entertained for a moment. The gallant officer then proceeded to observe, that it was most unpleasant to the officers of the army to be obliged to witness the infliction of this punishment: but, unless the gentlemen opposite would propose some effectual substitute—something that would preserve order amongst the soldiers—he, as an officer, must conscientiously declare, that he could not, consistently with his duty, consent that the discipline of the army should be risked by giving up the present system. But, at the same time that he made this declaration, he felt himself bound to say, that he was as sincere a friend to humanity as any of the gentlemen who took the other side of the question.

Mr. J. Smith

deprecated the attachment to cruel punishments which prevailed in this country. If they turned their eyes towards France, they would find thirty millions of people governed by law, without any flogging, torture, or personal suffering, except the brand on the shoulder. As they went through the streets of Paris, they might see men undergoing the operation of being branded, without any manifestation of pain; the mark being made, he believed, with some sort of corrosive liquid. It was certainly in our power to improve our own system by adopting the practice of those whom we too often affected to despise. Our army was taken, as the noble lord had observed, from the great mass of the people; but, within the last six or seven years, that people had made a progress in intellectual improvement, which no one could conceive who had not actually witnessed it. This was more especially the case with reference to the manufacturing districts. In those districts, scarcely a man could be met with who did not know how to read. They did not confine their reading to religious books, but perused philosophical and scientific works. He would ask, whether such men as these, when they entered the army, were fit objects for corporal punishment? When gentlemen contended for the system of flogging, he demanded, whether they had tried any other mode for the preservation of discipline? The answer was, that they had not. Now, he would tell them, that until they had tried the experiment, they were not competent to judge of the effect which a milder species of punishment would produce. He stated this from a sense of duty; and, so long as he had a seat in that House, so long would he endeavour to put an end to the infliction of torture on any man for any species of crime. With respect to an observation of his hon. friend the member for Westminster, it appeared to him that it had been very much mistaken. His hon. friend had said that the beating of the drums in the morning was associated in the minds of the inhabitants with the idea of corporal punishment; but he did not assert, that corporal punishment was constantly taking place in the barracks.

Sir H. Hardinge

said, it was rather unfortunate for the position of the hon. gentleman, that the reveille had not been beaten in the morning for a considerable period.

Mr. J. Smith

knew nothing of the facts-. He only stated what he believed his hen. friend had said.

Mr. Bennet

said, that a representation similar to that of his hon. friend, the member for Westminster, had been made to him last year.

Colonel Townshend

said, it had been customary formerly, to beat the drum in the morning. But, without any application from the inhabitants, and merely from a spontaneous anxiety for their comfort, for the last six months the reveille had not been beaten. When the hon. gentleman said, that whenever the drum was beaten it was associated with the idea of flogging in the minds of the inhabitants, he was entirely at a loss to understand the meaning of so extraordinary an assertion.

Mr. R. Martin

defended the vote he had given on a former night, in favour of the bill, as it stood. It was admitted on all sides, that the practice of flogging was very much diminished. This was owing to the exertions of the commander-in-chief, who had always expressed it as his opinion, that when the custom of inflicting corporal punishment prevailed to any great extent in a regiment, the discipline of that regiment must be bad. He would not vote for taking away the power of inflicting that species of punishment where it appeared to be necessary. He thought it was much better to leave the business in the hands of the commander-in-chief, who would deal with it as his kindness and humanity dictated.

Lord Palmerston

said, that his sentiments had been mistaken on one or two points. He was supposed to have said, that this privilege of flogging was a necessary prerogative of the Crown. He had not made any such observation. His position was, that the legislature had recognized the king as the head of the army and navy; that to him was intrusted the sole command and government of the forces by sea and land; and that therefore it rested with the Crown to determine by what code of laws those bodies could be best governed. The hon. member for Nottingham had argued, that corporal punishment was peculiarly unfit for persons reared in the manufacturing districts, because in general they had received some degree of education: but it should be observed, that where large masses of people were collected together in the manufacturing districts, they had not the same simplicity and innocence of manners, which distinguished the agricultural part of the population; and that therefore punishment was more likely to be deserved by the former than by the latter class. He knew that the best proof of the good order and discipline of a regiment was to be found in the infrequency of corporal punishment. Let it, however, be recollected, that he had never contended for frequency of punishment, but had merely argued for the propriety of asserting the power. Much praise had been bestowed on the French army, which, it was said, was governed without punishment, whilst ours was subjected to corporal correction. The conduct of the French army, however, when it retreated from the Peninsula into the south of France, proved the necessity of having recourse to that species of punishment. Their conduct, when they arrived in France, was of the very worst description. They plundered their fellow-countrymen without mercy; they burned villages, and carried devastation with them, wherever they went. Such of the in habitants as had it in their power fled with their property to places of safety. Such was the description of their conduct given by a French officer; who had also stated, that the British army exhibited a perfect model of good order and discipline and were hailed as deliverers.

Mr. Hobhouse

observed, that what he had said on a former night was, that it was represented to him that when corporal punishment was inflicted at the barracks, the drums were beaten to prevent the cries of the sufferer from being heard; On that occasion, a gallant officer had expressed his surprise by gesture, and he (Mr. H.) had said, across the table, "not lately." He had been told, that the noise of drums in the morning alarmed the inhabitants, who thought that they were beaten during the infliction of corporal punishment. Such had been their impression; though, no doubt, from what had been said, they were mistaken. The alarm, however, which had been excited in the neighbourhood of the King's Mews, proved that the place selected for barracks was a very unfit one. On one occasion, most certainly, corporal punishment had taken place. It was seen from the tops of the houses; and the story, greatly exaggerated he supposed, immediately got abroad. The consequence was, that whenever the drums were beaten afterwards, it was supposed that an infliction of corporal punishment was going on, and that the sound of the drums was introduced to prevent the cries of the soldiery from being distinguished. With respect to the observations which had fallen from the noble lord on the subject of the retreat of the French army, he thought the circumstance scarcely justified them. It was, he ought to remember, a beaten army, without stores or provisions, and which was obliged to supply its wants by any means that chanced to present themselves. But, what was the case with the British army in the retreat under sir John Moore? He had been told by British officers, that the discipline and good conduct of the French had been admirably preserved, while the English army abandoned itself to every species of disorder. The manner in which the British army was governed, reminded him very strongly of a story of the Dey of Algiers. Certain individuals wished him to abolish the custom of impaling and roasting: but he refused, observing, that hanging and decapitating would produce no effect at all, and therefore he was obliged to terrify his subjects by the occasional application of impaling and roasting. In the same way that the lash, it appeared, was kept in terrorem over the British army. The noble lord seemed to think that British soldiers would be good for nothing, if that remedy for insubordination were not sometimes applied. For his own part, he did not think the lash was calculated to increase their martial spirit, or improve their moral conduct.

Sir A. Hope

did not understand his noble friend to say, that the use of the lash was necessary. He had merely argued, that it was proper, for the discipline of the army, that the power of inflicting punishment should exist.

The report was agreed to.